To think Scotland should become independent?

[antelopevalley]

As life continues to get worse in the UK, it is time for Scotland to go independent. We need to build a forward-looking country that invests in its future, rather than the backward-looking country the UK has become that prioritises the rich. It is time for Scotland to separate from the UK and become that country.

Aargh....."under the guise of Nationalism" is supposed to be "under the guise of democracy"!

And yet we could do it if we really had to. It would cost money, though it would be a drop in the ocean compared with some of the other costs of Scexit. This idea that Scotland is propping up the rest of the UK with free oil and so on is absurd. This is a union, we work together for our mutual benefit. England does not "rely on" Scotland and Scotland does not "rely on" England.

So a vote for the SNP is not a vote for independence.www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-63730653

Ah yes, "you didn't vote the right way last time so we're going to make you keep doing it until you change your mind."

It's just like the Lisbon Treaty.

It's interesting that Sinn Fein have now acknowledged that there's no appetite for Irish unification and have dropped the Adams/McGuinness era rabble raising in favour of campaigning on policy issues such as youth unemployment.

How on earth could Scotland support itself?

Me too! absolutely delighted when I heard, now maybe NS could focus on the actual things she is in charge of, health, social care, education etc etc. She’s had enough time in power to do something but no she’d rather focus on Independence, when the country needs real help after a pandemic.

Out of interest, what sort of tone are you going for here? B

Because it very much comes across as pretentious, irritating and slightly ignorant. Just wondering.

What I meant was patently obvious and actually I would argue that but not/if not are pretty much interchangeable to anyone with any degree of sense.

But frankly I can't be arsed to argue with a child. Nothing you have said gets away from the basic fact:

1. The SNP went into the election saying they would hold (or attempt to hold) a second independence referendum.
2. They won the election.

If you understand anything about how representative democracy works none of this should come remotely as a surprise.

SNP now wants to use an election as a de facto referendum as they now accept it is up to Westminster to grant a de jure referendum.

Perhaps the UK could grant this:
For future Scottish elections (the next is 2026), if parties wanting a referendum get more CONSTITUENCY VOTES (ie not seats and not additional votes) than those who do not, then there is a presumption that the UK will grant a referendum to be held exactly one year after the election (ie. timing not up to the SNP). A "NO" vote would mean that independence is off the table for the next two elections (ie. 15 years). A YES vote in this referendum would authorise and instruct the Scottish and UK Governments to negotiate a UK leaving treaty - which would give FACTS about leaving (plus an additional agreement with the EU giving the FACTS about what Scotland must do to join the EU). These documents would be factual and not based on political bias and dogma, so none of the people involved could later claim they were told lies. Scotland would then hold a referendum on the treaty, and a YES vote would mean Scotland becomes independent, and a NO vote would mean independence is off the table for the next two elections.

After what happened with Brexit, it would be hypocritical of the SNP not to hold a second referendum once the UK leaving treaty is agreed.

If nothing else, doing it this way would stop the constant SNP mithering and force them to get on with governing Scotland for the benefit of the people.

PS. At the 2021 election the SNP/Greens got 49.25% and Labour/Tories/Libs got 50.75% of the constituency vote.

The Lisbon Treaty was rejected for specific reasons, it went back to the EC and they rectified the problem and was put in front of the people again. It's almost a textbook definition of how democracy should work.

But then you knew that already didn't you?

err no we really couldn't.

Have you not seen the debacle that is/has hs2 or Heathrow expansion... there would be a huge outcry if anyone suggested turning Falmouth into Faslane.

The costs would be on par with Furlough or energy support, rail, roads, new hospitals schools housing (for all the additional workers... believe me Cornwall hasn't a surplus of nuclear dockyard workers) ... and most importantly time scales.... and on workers, what happens if the current workforce don't want to relocate?

So England would pay Scotland to keep Trident where it is.

On Scotland and independence, its supposed to be a voluntary union.. yes? So by what means can Scotland leave?

Because as i understand it, the argument is "You ve had a vote, so you cannot have another one......" (i recently heard that 40 years is a suitable timescale, as thats the period between the UK's EU votes - from a Tory minister)

That doesn't seem "Voluntary" to me.

If nothing else, doing it this way would stop the constant SNP mithering and force them to get on with governing Scotland for the benefit of the people
PS. At the 2021 election the SNP/Greens got 49.25% and Labour/Tories/Libs got 50.75% of the constituency vote

Why doesn't this logic seem to work in Westminster?

Cameron got 37% of the pop. vote but that gave him the authority to have a referendum......

Bojo got 43% and that gave him the mandate to take the UK out of the EU with a terrible hard brexit.

Truss got none of the popular vote and added 30bn to the national debt......

Or do the rules get "adjusted" to suit?

Well the UK didn't even get a vote so democracy was clearly not functioning that well.

On Scotland and independence, its supposed to be a voluntary union.. yes? So by what means can Scotland leave?

Because as i understand it, the argument is "You ve had a vote, so you cannot have another one......" (i recently heard that 40 years is a suitable timescale, as thats the period between the UK's EU votes - from a Tory minister)

That doesn't seem "Voluntary" to me.

@Alexandra2001 Scots voted to stay in the UK in 2014. There is no evidence that they have changed their minds since.

Scots voted to stay in the UK in 2014. There is no evidence that they have changed their minds since

Well, that still doesn't answer "how can Scotland leave, should it wish?"

There appears to be no mechanism, even the EU had a way of leaving.......

The UK Govt has made it very clear there will be no vote, ...regardless of polling or who Scotland elects.

Logically, that means its not "voluntary"

The UK govt actually said now is not the time , not never. And tbh, that is probably correct - COVID and it's aftermath, cost of living crisis etc (and these issues apply to many countries around the world, not just the UK.)

So much hate for Scotland on here. A lot of Scot’s want to stay in the union - and voted to do so last time. It’s sad that so many people find us a drain on the economy.

I think it’s just economic facts rather than any dislike. Although I think we’re better staying together for various reasons - facing international threats and not being poorer overall the hate against England gets a bit wearing at times.

But in the spirit of being nice, I think good things about Scotland.Not the SNP though who is driving further division.

You're not comparing like for like here in that Holyrood is NOT the sovereign power whereas Westminster actually is.

It is the uncodified UK constitution and settled international law that gives the UK Government the authority to do things such as legislate for a referendum on the EU, hold that referendum and even implement the result.

Westminster IS the Supreme Legislator and Authority in the UK. Just like in other countries because the UK is a unitary sovereign state.

The First Ministers are NOT equivalent to the Prime Minister.

You'll find the unitary sovereign states in Europe are even more prohibitive than the UK.

"In the Federal Republic of Germany, which is a nation-state based on the constituent power of the German people, states are not ‘masters of the constitution’.

Therefore there is no room under the constitution for individual states to attempt to secede. This violates the constitutional order.”

- Ruling from the Constitutional Court of the Federal Republic of Germany.

As it stands, the UK does provide for a mechanism for IndyRef2 as we saw in 2013. However, I'm in favour of and the UK is perfectly entitled to follow the German, Canadian, French, Spanish, etc, examples.

Yes, this is both legal and democratic.

@DownNative Don't dispute any of that but then can the UK Govt stop saying its a voluntary union of equals?

Because (as you so eloquently put it) clearly isn't.

Perhaps the mistake here was granting a ref in 2014.... another Cameron screw up.

Doesn't sound like a mechanism.... more an ad-hoc decision ...based on who happens to be in power and their "generosity"

Which Government said its voluntary?

International law as well as domestic certainly does say that.

The first article of the Treaty of Union reads:

"That the Two Kingdoms of Scotland and England, shall upon the 1st May next ensuing the date hereof, and forever after, be United into One Kingdom by the Name of Great Britain."

That applies to Northern Ireland as well. Exactly the same political reality as in every country in Europe, in fact!

The reason why the UK is a partnership of equals aka Union Of Equals is because every constituent citizen has one vote for one MP.

A citizen in London, Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast all have exactly one vote each which is the definition of equal.

If you're seriously suggesting that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland should have exactly the same voting power as a bloc as England, well that would definitely be inequal. That's because the 15% bloc would have the same power as the 85% bloc. Its logically unequal.

That's why 1:1 is the definition of equal and why citizens in every part of the UK has the same number of votes to cast however they see fit. And this is very important because the UK is a UNITARY SOVEREIGN STATE! You, on the other hand, are talking as though each part of the UK is completely separate from each other. That's clearly false.

We have the same rights, same opportunities, same consular protection and, by and large, the same laws as each other. We even have the same Monarch. That's equal.

The equals in the union are the people and NOT the constituent parts we call England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Each person in the U.K. has the same identical democratic power. No more, no less.

To claim anything else is to engage in distortion and aim to deliberately mislead the people.

We ARE a union of equals within a single UNITARY SOVEREIGN STATE known as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

England, Scotland, Wales were all abolished as separate independent and sovereign countries.

And replaced with the United Kingdom of Great Britain. Northern Ireland came later.

Oh, and the UK does have a mechanism as seen in Scotland and Northern Ireland's Good Friday Agreement. The unitary sovereign state itself does NOT have to lay out the full criteria for secession either. This, too, is settled law....

Does NOT say that was meant in my first sentence above.

I don't give a shite about what Scotland do regarding independence, but fully agree Nicola Sturgeon is a huge, flapping disappointment with regards to womens' rights.

She could have been a major voice for women but has chosen to seek woke head pats instead. Traitor.

So its not voluntary? again fair enough... i was under the impression it was, Scotland is captive, bound by Westminster, glad that is cleared up.

Seems that devolution is a complete and utter waste of time & money then... why have it? seems pointless and mechanism for trouble.

You seem particularly invested in Scotland remaining part of the Union, i'm not particularly bothered either way.. however, i do think that as Scotland continually votes SNP, they should have a means to leave, other than once in a life time.

Why exactly are you hung up on the "voluntary" aspect when it comes to the UK yet say diddly squat when it's demonstrated this is exactly the same as in every country in Europe?

If you have a problem with one and not the other, that's called hypocrisy.

Captive?! Give your head a wobble! Westminster is the sovereign power and CAN say no forever if it wants to in the same way the USA, Germany, Spain and France have.

Yet the UK hasn't said that! It's merely said "now is not the time" which us highey reasonable!

USA, Germany, Spain and France do NOT go to that extent.

Given this and the fact there IS a mechanism, Scotland is so far from "captive" its not funny. Do you have a problem with the UK Government having total control over any border poll in Northern Ireland?!

You'd be wrong if you did.

Under international law, the UK and other sovereign states are entitled to full protection in law of territorial integrity. So, no, devolution is not pointless. It's the limit of self-determination Scotland et al is entitled to. The SNP should concentrate on running devolved affairs and not independence. Not pointless.

"A vote for the SNP is not a vote for another independence referendum." - Nicola Sturgeon

For someone who isn't bothered, you sure do post quite a bit on the issue!